Toward Understanding Task, Mission and Public Service Motivation: A Conceptual and Empirical Synthesis of Goal Theory and

Public Service Motivation

Bradley E Wright Department of Political Science University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 bwright@email.uncc.edu 704.687.4530

Paper prepared for presentation at the 7th National Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., October 9-11, 2003.

Abstract This study advances our understanding of employee work motivation and performance in the public sector by reinterpreting the existing literature regarding public service motivation within the psychological conceptual framework of goal theory. An empirical test of this new framework suggests that goal theory can provide a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the independent contributions of task, mission and public service on employee work motivation and performance in the public sector. The importance of the organizations mission and the degree of employee public service motivation increases employee work motivation in the public sector by making the job more important. In addition, after controlling for the effect of these intrinsic rewards provided by the job and organization, performance related extrinsic rewards were not found to contribute to employee work motivation.

Toward Understanding Task, Mission and Public Service Motivation: A Conceptual and Empirical Synthesis of Goal Theory and Public Service Motivation

Introduction It has been commonly assumed that public sector organizations are more likely to employ individuals whose values and needs are consistent with the public service mission of the organization (Baldwin, 1984; Crewson, 1997; Perry & Wise, 1990; Perry, 1996, 1997). Charged with promoting general social welfare, as well as the protection of the society and every individual in it, public organizations often have missions with broader scope and more profound impact than typically found in the private sector (Baldwin, 1984). The composition of the public workforce has been expected to reflect the nature of the work in the public sector by attracting employees who desire greater opportunities to fulfill higherorder needs and altruistic motives by performing public service. It is these individual characteristics that are often touted as the key to motivating behavior because understanding the values and reward preferences of public managers is essential in structuring organizational environments and incentive systems to satisfy those preferences (Wittmer, 1991, p. 369). In fact, it is believed that the importance public employees place on the opportunities thought to be more readily available in the public sector, such as performing altruistic acts or receiving intrinsic rewards, compensates for the low levels of extrinsic rewards associated with the public sector and explains why no differences have been

found between public and private employee work motivation (Baldwin, 1984, 1987; Emmert & Taher, 1992; Posner & Schmidt, 1982; Rainey, 1979, 1983). Studies have provided some empirical support for the assertion that employee reward preferences coincide with the function served by the sector in which they are employed. Public sector employees have been found to place a lower value on financial rewards (Cacioppe & Mock, 1984; Houston, 2000; Jurkiewicz et al., 1998; Khojasteh, 1993; Kilpatrick et al.,1964; Lawler, 1971; Newstrom et al., 1976; Rainey, 1982; Rawls et al., 1975; Wittmer, 1991) and a higher value on helping others or public service (Buchanan, 1975; Cacioppe & Mock, 1984; Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 1964; Rainey, 1983; Wittmer, 1991) than their private sector counterparts. Empirical support for these differences, however, has not always been consistent. Several studies have failed to find differences in preference for monetary rewards (Crewson, 1997; Gabris & Simo, 1995; Maidani, 1991; Schuster, 1974), while others have found that even if public employees do value monetary rewards less than private employees, such financial incentives still are highly valued (Newstrom, Reif & Monczka, 1976; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991). Evidence also has been found to suggest that public employees do not value opportunities to benefit society (Jurkeiwicz, Massey & Brown, 1998) or helping (Gabris & Simo, 1995) any more than those in the private sector. Even if sector differences do exist, however, few studies have tested whether such differences have a significant impact on employee work motivation or performance. Those studies that have attempted to link differences in public

sector employee motives to any specific performance related attitudinal or behavioral consequences have produced mixed results. Although Rainey (1982) found no relationship between the importance employees place on public service and their job involvement, Crewson (1997) found that federal employees who prefer service over economic rewards were more committed to the organization. Similarly, while Naff and Crum (1999) found that employees with high public service values were less likely to leave government employment and more likely to receive better performance evaluations, Alonso and Lewis (2001) found no relationship between a public service orientation and performance evaluations or career achievement. Perhaps even more unfortunate is that the empirical research on sector differences lack strong theory (Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Baldwin, 1984, 1991). The research investigating the effects of public service motivation, for example, has not done so within the broader framework of a psychological theory of work motivation (Gibson & Teasley, 1973; Wright, 2001). This study will contribute to the literature regarding public sector employee performance in two important ways. First, this study will empirically test the relationship between employee public service orientation and employee work motivation that is often asserted, but rarely tested, in the public administration literature. Second, this research tests two competing models explaining public service motivations effect on employee work motivation. One model, based on goal theory of motivation, suggests the effect of public service motivation on employee work motivation is mediated by the employees perception of the

importance of their job. Public service motivation enhances the perceived importance of the employees job which in turn enhances motivation. The second model is more consistent with the current public service motivation literature that public service motivation has a direct effect on employee work motivation. Competing Models for the Effects of Public Service Motivation Job Mediated Model Recent reviews of work motivation theories have suggested that any model of work motivation should include the underlying process variables that explain how goals affect work motivation (Kanfer, 1992; Katzell & Thompson, 1990; Mitchell, 1997). Goal theory suggests that employees will expend greater effort toward achieving performance goals that they believe will result in important outcomes (Locke & Latham, 1990). This emphasis on the importance of outcomes is consistent with Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) have suggestion that the effectiveness and performance of government agencies may be enhanced by three interrelated levels of intrinsic rewards--task, mission and public servicethat are available through the employees role in the organization. Although goal theory can be used to illustrate how employee work motivation can be influenced by all three levels, it suggests that the effects of mission valence and public service motivation are mediated at the job level. At the job level, goal theory suggests that work motivation requires the employee to believe that performance goals can be attained and will result in important outcomes for themselves or, to the extent they are committed to

organizational goals, for their organization (Klein, 1991). In other words, work motivation is enhanced when employees see their job as not only as doable but also important. These job level attributes and their implications for explaining the separate contributions of public service and mission on work motivation are depicted in Figure 1 and will be discussed below. Self-efficacy. The extent to which goals seem achievable is determined by an individuals sense of self-efficacy, the individuals judgment of his or her own capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self-efficacy influences motivation through its effect on the direction and persistence of behavior. If employees feel more confident in their abilities, they are more likely to see goals as achievable and worthy of their effort. Higher levels of selfefficacy often are associated with better performance, because individuals who believe that they can accomplish a goal are more likely expend the necessary effort and persist in the face of obstacles (Bandura, 1988; Bandura & Cervone, 1983, 1986; Early & Lituchy, 1991). Self-efficacy has been shown to enhance certain types of performance in the public sector. Frayne and Latham (1987; Latham & Frayne, 1989) found that enhancing employee self-efficacy to overcome obstacles affecting the ability to come to work can increase job attendance among public employees. Job Importance. In addition to having achievable goals, employee work motivation also requires that performance objectives be viewed as important. If employees do not perceive their job to be important or meaningful, they have

little reason to be motivated to perform their work. Although self-efficacy is important when understanding motivation at the job level, it is the concept of job importance that is especially salient in understanding the contributions public service motivation and organization mission make toward organization performance. There are a number of ways in which organizations can affect the employees perceptions of goal importance. First, as mentioned above, managers can persuade employees that their jobs are important by providing a convincing rationale for their work tasks (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988). One way managers may attempt to do this is by linking the job performance directly to organizational performance. Similar to the concept of task significance, if employees can see how their work contributes to achieving important organizational goals, then they are more likely to see their work as meaningful (Wright, 2001). In the public sector, however, this aspect of goal theory may be particularly salient because the link between individual and organization goals may extend beyond the boundaries of the organization (Perry & Porter, 1982; Perry & Wise, 1990; Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). Public service motivation asserts that public employees may view their performance goals as important because of the congruence between the altruistic or community service nature of public sector goals and the high value that public sector employees place on work that helps others and benefits society (Crewson, 1997; Perry & Wise, 1990; Wittmer, 1991). If achieving assigned goals can satisfy personal employee

motives, such as performing public service, then they are more likely to be perceived as important and accepted as personal goals. In addition to the intrinsic rewards provided by the nature of the job or function of the organization, organizations may also make assigned performance goals important to the employee by providing appropriate extrinsic rewards for goal attainment (Klein, 1991; Mowen, Middlemist, & Luther, 1981; Wright, 1989). Not only is the type and amount of reward important, but such extrinsic rewards must contingent on performance if they are to act as performance incentives (Lawler, 1994). If, as evidence suggests, public sector employees value extrinsic rewards less than their private sector counterparts (Cacioppe & Mock, 1984; Houston, 2000; Jurkiewicz et al., 1998; Khojasteh, 1993; Kilpatrick et al.,1964; Lawler, 1971; Newstrom et al., 1976; Rainey, 1982; Rawls et al., 1975; Wittmer, 1991) or perceive a weak link between performance and rewards (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Rainey, 1983), then the utility of this method for enhancing goal importance is severely limited. Direct Effect Model Using the same basic theoretical constructs, the literature on public service motivation may suggest an alternative explanation of contributions public service, mission and job characteristics make toward employee work motivation (Figure 2). Three changes in particular may be implied. First, Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) suggest that, in addition to an affect on job or task level motivation, the organizations mission may increase employee public service motivation by attracting individuals who will self-select into the organization on the basis of the

valence of the mission for them (p. 26). Second, the research on public service motivation seems to imply that public service motivation would have a direct effect on employee work motivation and performance (Brewer & Seldon, 1998, 2000; Crewson, 1997; Naff & Crum, 1999; Perry & Wise, 1990; Wittmer, 1991) rather than an indirect effect mediated by job-level characteristics. A third way that a model suggested by the public service motivation literature may differ from one implied by goal theory is that it may assume that extrinsic rewards have a direct effect on employee work motivation. Such an assumption seems to underlie the view that no differences in public and private employee work motivation exist because the opportunity to fulfill altruistic or service needs in the public service compensates for the higher levels of extrinsic rewards available in the private sector (Perry & Wise, 1990). Method The sample for this study consisted of 385 New York State employees drawn from a two-stage cluster sampling procedure. First, a sample of state agencies was generated. Using the 1999 New York State Workforce Management Plan (New York State Department of Civil Service 1999), 11 of the 72 state agencies in New York were selected at random with their probability for inclusion determined by the number of agency employees in January 1999. Of these 11 agencies, five provided a current list or telephone directory. Employee lists from the seven remaining agencies were taken from the most recent New York State Office of General Services (OGS) Telephone Directory. In the second stage, 35

10

employees employed in the state capital were selected at random from each of the 11 agencies. Study Measures Each of six study variables was measured using multiple items taken, whenever possible, from previously validated measures. For example, work motivation, defined as the direction, intensity, and persistence of work-related behaviors desired by the organization or its representatives (Mitchell, 1997), was measured using a general measure of work motivation first developed and validated by Patchen and his associates (Patchen, 1970; Patchen, Pelz, & Allen, 1965). This four-item measure asks individuals to rate themselves on how involved they are in their work (direction) and how hard they work (intensity) on a set of five-point response scales. Versions of this scale used in studies of public sector organizations have had mixed success. While Rainey (1983) found a three-item variant of this measure to be unreliable, Baldwin (1984, 1987, 1990) added an item concerning persistence to his adaptation of Patchens original four-item scale and achieved an acceptable level of internal reliability (Cronbachs alpha = .68). Capitalizing on the successful application of the modified version of this measure in the public sector, this study measured work motivation using a six-item measure that adapted the five items employed by Baldwin (1984, 1987, 1990). To these a sixth item was added for this study to assess the degree of persistence in an employees work-related behavior (I am willing to start work early or stay late to finish a job).

11

Self-efficacy was measured using four items, three of which were adapted from an instrument of work-related expectancies (Sims, Szilagyi & McKemey, 1976), assessing the probability that effort would lead to good performance.1 Based on Locke and Lathams (1990; Lee, Bobko, Earley, & Locke, 1991) Goal Setting Questionnaire a five-item measure of the availability of extrinsic workrelated rewards contingent on performance was developed. A multiple item measure of organizational importance and public service motivation were developed especially for this research. Recognizing the important link between the dual meaning of public service (Brewer & Seldon, 1998), public service motivation was measured by three items assessing the respondents commitment to government employment the opportunities it provides to do something worthwhile for society.2 Organization importance was measured by three items assessing the degree of importance the employee places on the work of the organization. Items for all six study variables were measured on either a six-point (coded 1 6) strength of agreement (strongly disagree, generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, generally agree, and strongly agree) or a five-point (coded 0 4) frequency of occurrence (almost never/never, rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always/always) scale. To accommodate the differences in response scales, composite scale scores for each measure were computed as the sum of the standardized item scores. A complete list of the items used in each measure is provided in Appendix A.

12

Survey Respondents Of the 385 questionnaires that initially were mailed, 30 were returned uncompleted because the selected participant was no longer employed by the agency. From the reduced sample of 355, 267 usable questionnaires were returned for an overall response rate of 75.2 percent. Response rates by agency ranged from a low of 64.5 percent from the Office of Mental Health to a high of 83.9 percent from the Department of Labor. Comparisons between the demographics of the sample respondents with characteristics of state employees as reported by 1999 New York State Workforce Management Plan (New York State Department of Civil Service 1999) suggested that the sample was similar to the population in terms of gender (51 percent and 48 percent female, respectively), age (the average age of the sample was 47 years while the state average was 45), and length of service to the organization (16 years on average for the sample, while the average organizational tenure for all state employees was nearly 15 years).3 The characteristics of the sample did differ significantly from the population in terms of salary grade and ethnicity. While nearly three-quarters (71.8%) of New York state employees are Caucasian, the sample was even more dominated by the presence of White employees (89.5 percent). Although three-quarters of all New York state employees are classified in grades commonly associated with clerical or support positions (salary grade 17 or below), two-thirds of the sample were classified in professional, technical or managerial grades (at or above salary grade 18). Given the relatively high response rate (75.2 percent) and the

13

limitations of the available sample frame,4 it seems likely that these differences were characteristic of the sample and not just of the survey respondents. In recognizing the substantial salary grade differences and the emphasis on professional and management staff in the public service motivation literature, only data regarding respondents at or above salary grade 18 were included in the analysis. Univariate Analysis of Measures Reliability estimates (Cronbachs coefficient alpha) for the six measures ranged from 0.65 to 0.81 (Table 2). Although the reliability of two measures, job importance and self-efficacy were slightly below the level of reliability (0.70) suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), a modeling technique will be used in the covariance structure analysis to adjust for measurement error (Hayduk, 1987). Table 1 shows the univariate statistics for each measure prior to standardization.5 The potential range of values for each scale varied depending on the number of items and number of response categories per item. Distributions for four of the six measures were negatively skewed, with respondents on average reporting a relatively high degree of work motivation, job importance, self-efficacy, and organization importance. As might be expected with self-report measures, responses were the most positive when participants were asked to describe their own behavior (work motivation) or abilities (selfefficacy), possibly due to social desirability bias (Rainey 1993). Contrary to expectations, respondents reported only a moderate amount of public service motivation, with the mean score just above the scale midpoint. Respondents did

14

not perceive a strong relationship between rewards and performance, with the measure scored substantially below its midpoint. Although all six measures show a moderate degree of variability, the work motivation measure produced the greatest degree of homogeneity in responses. Bivariate Relations Table 2 provides the reliability estimates for each of the eight study measures included in the final analysis, as well as the zero-order correlations between them. Nearly all of the correlations (11 of 15) were statistically significant at p < 0.05. In addition to the interrelatedness of the study measures, the prevalence of significant relationships may be a function of characteristics of the study itself, specifically the sample size and source effects. The sample size used in the study was large enough to be sensitive to small effects (Cohen 1988), finding statistically significant relations where only 2.5 percent of variance is shared. The prevalence of significant correlations between measures may also be a product of mono-method bias. The measures may have been correlated over and above the true variance of the underlying latent variables due to shared systematic or source errors associated with collecting self-report data at a single point in time (Sullivan & Feldman, 1979). Nonetheless, the measures appeared to be relatively distinct. The mean and median correlations among the measures were low (0.25 and 0.21, respectively), with four-fifths of the correlations no larger than 0.37. The largest bivariate correlation, between job importance and work motivation, was 0.58, suggesting that no measure shared greater than one-third of its variance with any other

15

measure. Although the proportion of shared variance between these two measures was 0.33, the estimated ratio of true-score variance to observed score variance (Cronbachs alpha) for each measure was substantially higher, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively. Multivariate Analysis A covariance structure analysis for each model was conducted using LISREL version 8.30. The hypothesized relationships among the independent variables and between these variables and the dependent variable were tested in a single indicator structural equation model incorporating measurement error (Hayduk 1987). Both models were tested using composite scores of the multiple item measures as single indicators of their respective latent variable. To recognize that the relationship between the observed value of each scale and the theoretical construct it is intended to measure is not perfect, the error variance for each measure was set by constraining the values associated with the measure in the theta delta or theta epsilon matrices equal to the variance of the measure multiplied by one minus the reliability (Hayduk 1987; Jreskog & Srbom 1992).6 Thus the path from the latent variable to the measured indicator is estimated to be equal to the square root of the measures reliability.7 Job Mediated Model The overall model fit of the hypothesized structural model suggested by goal theory was tested using six fit indices recommended by Jaccard and Wan (1996). All six of the indices suggested that the theoretical model was generally consistent with the general pattern of relationships reflected by the data. Neither

16

the maximum likelihood chi-square (X2 (4) = 3.49, p > 0.01) nor the p value test for close fit (0.66) were statistically significant, consistent with good model fit. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.00 and the standardized root mean square residual (standardized RMR) was 0.02, both greater than the thresholds generally considered necessary for a satisfactory model fit (0.08 and 0.05, respectively). The comparative fit index (CFI) was 1.00 and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0.99, both surpassing the 0.90 value used to suggest good model fit. In addition to the six model fit indices, the analysis also found support for four of the five hypothesized relationships (Figure 3). Organizational importance and public service motivation had direct, positive effects on job importance (p < 0.05), together explaining 64% of the variance in employee perceptions regarding the importance of their jobs.8 In turn, job importance and job-related self-efficacy had direct, positive effect on employee work motivation (p < 0.05), together explaining 49% of the variation in employee work motivation. Together, these findings support the assertion that the effect of organization importance and public service motivation on employee work motivation is mediated by job importance. Only the hypothesized relationship between rewards and job importance was not supported by the model. Once the effects of organization importance and public service motivation on job importance were accounted for, the effect of extrinsic contingent rewards was no longer statistically significant (p > 0.05). One possible explanation for this finding may be that the availability of intrinsic rewards suggested by the existence of important organizational goals

17

and the desire to perform meaningful public service may compensate for the limited availability of performance related extrinsic rewards as reported by survey respondents (see table 1). Direct Effect Model As with the previous model, the overall model fit of the hypothesized structural relationships of the direct effect model were tested using six fit indices recommended by Jaccard and Wan (1996). Again, all six of the indices suggested that the theoretical model was generally consistent with the general pattern of relationships reflected by the data. The overall chi square test of model fit was not statistically significant (X2 (6) = 9.58, p > 0.05). The RMSEA was 0.06 and the p value test for close fit was 0.35. The CFI was 0.98 as was the traditional GFI. The standardized RMR was 0.04. Although the six model fit indices were consistent with a good model fit, a nest model comparison of the direct effect model results with the job mediated model results showed that the job mediated model was a significantly better fit (X2d (2) = 6.09, p < 0.05). The analysis found support for only four of the six relationships hypothesized by the direct effect model (Figure 4). As predicted, organizational importance was found to have direct positive effects on job importance and public service motivation (p < 0.05), explaining 64% of the variance in job importance and 25% of the variance in public service motivation. However, only job importance and job-related self-efficacy were found to have direct, positive effects on employee work motivation (p < 0.05). Although the model still explained 48% of the variation in employee work motivation, the analysis did not support the

18

hypothesized relationships between either rewards or public service motivation and employee work motivation. The failure to find a direct, positive relationship between public service motivation and employee work motivation is an important departure from the hypothesized direct effect model, suggesting that public service motivation is unrelated to employee performance after controlling for the effect of general task motivation as represented by job importance and jobrelated self-efficacy. Conclusion Although the results of any single study should be viewed with some caution, this study advances our understanding of employee work motivation and performance in the public sector by reinterpreting the existing literature regarding public service motivation within the psychological conceptual framework of goal theory to suggest a series of new mechanisms by which employee values influence behavior. An empirical test of this new framework suggests that goal theory can provide a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the independent contributions of task, mission and public service on employee work motivation and performance in the public sector. For employees to be motivated to perform their work, they must find their job to be important and have confidence that they can successfully perform it. The employees perception of the importance of the organizational mission and their desire to provide meaningful contribution to society are two factors that influence the degree of importance employees place on their jobs. The more important the organizations function and the more public service motivation an employee

19

exhibits, the more important they find their work to be. This suggests that not only can public service motivation influence employee performance in the public sector but also that it is critical that public sector organizations clearly communicate to their employees how important the organizations function and performance is to society. Perhaps contrary to the expectations of goal theory, extrinsic rewards were not found to influence employee work motivation. This is consistent with the literature on public service motivation, however, as it has not only suggested that public sector employees are more motivated by the intrinsic rewards associated with altruistic and service related opportunities but that these rewards reduce the importance of extrinsic rewards in public organizations (Perry & Wise, 1990). The findings of this study provide additional evidence to support that claim. In fact, neither the job mediated model nor the direct effect model tested in this study provided any evidence to suggest that extrinsic rewards influenced employee work motivation even when such rewards are contingent on performance. After controlling for the influence of perceived organizational importance and employee public service motivation, extrinsic rewards were not found to have significant direct or indirect effect on employee work motivation. Consistent with the implications of goal theory, the job mediated model did find that public service motivation has an important, albeit indirect, effect of work motivation. This provides additional evidence to support the assertion that the intrinsic rewards provided by the nature of the job and function of the

20

organization may be more important to public sector employees than, or compensate for the limited availability of, performance related extrinsic rewards. Given the potential usefulness of goal theory to provide a strong theoretical framework for future studies regarding public service motivation, future research should extend this work by empirically testing relationships between employee public service motivation, job importance and organizational mission valence and employee or organizational performance measures controlling for other goal related constructs (such as performance feedback, job specificity and difficulty) and contextual factors (such as procedural constraints, organization goal conflict and ambiguity) that may affect the psychological or behavioral processes underlying how individual values and organizational characteristics lead to behavior (Wright, forthcoming).

Although most measures of self-efficacy are task specific, a more general measure of selfefficacy based on work-related expectancies was used in this study. Although some consider such a general measure to be inappropriate (Bandura 1986), work-related expectancy measures have been found to correlate with measures of locus of control (Sims et al. 1976) and resemble methods used to assess efficacy expectations in laboratory studies (Klein 1991). 2 This measure of public service motivation combing the interest to do public service with the interest to work in public service may have its weaknesses. A recent study by Lewis and Frank (2002) found that employees who placed a greater value on the ability to help others and be useful to society were only slightly more likely to choose government service (p. 399). 3 Statistical tests comparing the age and length of service of the sample with the population suggested that the sample was significantly older and with longer tenure than the population. These differences were no longer significant, however, if adjustments are made to take into account that the data regarding the state workforce were collected more than one year prior to the collection of the sample data. 4 The 1998 New York State Office of General Services (OGS) Telephone Directory, used to select a sample for 7 of the 11 state agencies, only lists the most frequently called state employees. Employees assigned dedicated phone lines may be more likely to be at the higher levels of the organization. 5 Although composite scale scores for each measure used to analyze the measure relations were computed as the sum of the standardized item scores to accommodate the differences in response scale across items, the meaning of such scores are difficult to interpret. For this

21

reason, the sum of the raw item scores was used to describe the sample in terms of the eight study measures. 6 Error variances associated with the indicators (e) are equal to one minus the indicator's reliability estimate. 7 This path can be interpreted as the factor loading of the observed indicator on the conceptual variable it was intended to measure. 8 Coefficients of determination for endogenous variables can be calculated from Figures 3 and 4 as one minus the error term for the latent variable (E).

22

Figure 1. Hypothesized Job Mediated Model

Self-efficacy
+ +

Contingent Rewards

Public Service Motivation

Job Importance
+

Work Motivation

Organization Importance

Figure 2. Hypothesized Direct Effect Model

Self-efficacy
+ +

Contingent Rewards

Job Importance
+

Work Motivation

Organization Importance

+ +

Public Service Motivation

23

Table 1 Univariate Statistics Potential Scale Range Work Motivation Job Importance Self-Efficacy Public Service Motivation Rewards Organization Importance 3 - 30 2 - 16 3 - 22 3 - 18 3 - 26 Observed Observed Standard Minimum Maximum Score Score Deviation 3.78 2.05 3.13 3.61 5.09 13 4 7 3 3 30 16 22 18 26

Midpoint 16.5 9.0 12.5 10.5 14.5

Mean 24.06 13.20 16.98 12.33 11.14

3 - 18

10.5

15.09

2.71

18

24

Table 2 Bivariate Correlations and Reliabilities 1 1 Work Motivation 2 Job Importance 3 Self-Efficacy 4 Public Service Motivation 5 Rewards (0.75) 0.58* 0.16* 0.29* 0.20* (0.65) 0.09 0.37* 0.28* (0.65) -0.06 0.10 (0.74) 0.21* (0.81) 2 3 4 5 6

6 Organization Importance

0.45*

0.55*

0.00

0.32*

0.13*

(0.70)

*p < 0.05 Cronbach's alpha in parentheses.

25

Figure 3. Job Mediated Model Results

Contingent Rewards Self-efficacy

0.00
Job Importance

0.21*

Public Service Motivation

0.21*

0.89*

Work Motivation 0.51 E

0.69*
Organization Importance

0.36 E

The structural path estimates are reported as standardized regression weights. *Path coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.05.

26

Figure 4. Direct Effect Model Results

Contingent Rewards Self-efficacy

-0.07 0.21*
Job Importance

0.82*

Work Motivation 0.52 E

0.81*
Organization Importance

0.36 E

0.05
Public Service Motivation 0.75 E

0.50*

The structural path estimates are reported as standardized regression weights. *Path coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.05.

27

References Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31(4), 363380. Baldwin, J. N. (1984). Are we really lazy? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4(2), 80-89. Baldwin, J. N. (1987). Public versus private: Not that different, not that consequential. Public Personnel Management, 16(2), 181-193. Baldwin, J. N. (1990). Perceptions of public versus private sector personnel and informal red tape: Their impact on motivation. American Review of Public Administration, 20, 7-28. Baldwin, J. N. (1991). Public versus private employees: Debunking stereotypes. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(2), 1-27. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275-302. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluation and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 91-113. Brewer, G. A. & Seldon, S. C. (1998). Whistle blowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 8(3), 413-439. Brewer, G. A. & Seldon, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 10(4), 685-711. Brewer, G. A., Seldon, S. C. & Facer, R. L. (2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 254-264. Buchanan, B. (1975). Government managers, business executives, and organizational commitment. Public Administration Review, 34(4), 339-347. Cacioppe, R., & Mock, P. (1984). A comparison of the quality of work experience in

28

government and private organizations. Human Relations, 37(11), 923-940. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 499-518. Earley, P. C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1991). Delineating goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81-88. Emmert, M. A., & Taher, W. A. (1992). Public sector professionals: The effects of public sector jobs on motivation, job satisfaction and work involvement. American Review of Public Administration, 22(1), 37-48. Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 387392. Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33-51. Gibson, F. K., & Teasley, C. E. (1973). The humanistic model of organizational motivation: A review of research support. Public Administration Review, 23(1), 89-96. Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Houston, D. J. (2000) Public-Service Motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 10(4), 713-727. Jaccard, J. & Wan, C. K. (1996) LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multipkle regression. Sage University Papers series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-114. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1992). LISREL VIII: Analysis of linear structural relations. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Jurkiewicz, C. L., Massey, T. K., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Motivation in public and private organizations: A comparative study. Public Productivity & Management Review, 21(3), 230-250. Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 1-53. Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144-153.

29

Khojasteh, M. (1993). Motivating the private vs. public sector managers. Public Personnel Management, 22(3), 391-401. Kilpatrick, F. P., Cummings, M. C. jr., & Jennings, M. K. (1964). The image of the federal service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Klein, H. J. (1991). Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 230257. Latham, G. P., & Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job attendance: A follow-up and a replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 411416. Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lawler, E. E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass. Lee, L., Bobko, P., Earley, P. C., & Locke, E. A. (1991). An empirical analysis of a goal setting questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 467-482. Lewis, G. B. & Frank, S. A. (2002). Who wants to work for government? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 395-404. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Maidani, E. A. (1991). Comparative study of Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. Public Personnel Management, 20(4), 441-448. Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivation strategies with organizational contexts. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Bbehavior (Vol. 19, pp. 57-149). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press. Mowen, R. T., Middlemist, R. D., & Luther, D. (1981). Joint effects of assigned goal levels and incentive structure on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 598-603. Naff, K. C. & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16. New York State Department of Civil Service (1999). 1999 New York State workforce management plan. Newstrom, J. W., Reif, W. E., & Monczka, R. M. (1976). Motivating the public employee: Fact vs. fiction. Public Personnel Management, 5, 67-72.

30

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Patchen, M. (1970). Participation, achievement, and involvement on the job. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Patchen, M., Pelz, D., & Allen, C. (1965). Some questionnaire measures of employee motivation and morale. Institute for Social Research: Ann Arbor, MI. Perry, J. L. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 5-22. Perry, J. L. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 181-197. Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89-98. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organizational theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182201. Perry, J. L., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey Press. Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1982). Determining managerial strategies in the public sector: What kinds of people enter the public and private sectors? An updated comparison of perceptions, stereotypes, and values. Human Resource Management, 21(2), 35-43. Rainey, H. G. (1993). Work motivation. In R.T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 19-39). New York: Marcel Dekker. Rainey, H. G. (1979). Perceptions of incentives in business and government: Implications for civil service reform. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 440-448. Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 288-302. Rainey, H. G. (1983). Private agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals and individual roles. Administration & Society, 15(2), 207-242.

31

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1-32. Raven, B. H. & Rietsema, J. (1957). The effects of varied clarity of group path upon the individual and his relationship to his group. Human Relations, 10, 29-45. Rawls, J. R., Ullrich, R. A., & Nelson, O. T. (1975). A comparison of managers entering or reentering the profit and nonprofit sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 18(3), 616-623. Schuster, J. R. (1974). Management-compensation policy and the public interest. Public Personnel Management, 3, 510-523. Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & McKemey, D. R. (1976). Antecedents of workrelated expectancies. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 547-559. Sullivan, J. L., & Feldman, S. (1979). Multiple indicators: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government, hybrid sector and business managers. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14(4), 369-383. Wright, B. E. (2001). Public sector work motivation: Review of current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 559-586. Wright, B. E. (forthcoming) The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognition theories. Accepted for publication in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Wright, P. M. (1989). Test of the mediating role of goals in the incentiveperformance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 699-705.

32

Appendix A Work Motivation I put forth my best effort to get my job done regardless of the difficulties. I am willing to start work early or stay late to finish a job. It has been hard for me to get very involved in my current job.(R) I probably do not work as hard as others who do the same type of work.(R)* I do extra work for my job that isnt really expected of me.* Time seems to drag while I am on the job.(R)* Job Importance I understand the importance of accomplishing my work objectives. A lot of people can be affected by how well I do my job. I work on tasks that seem useless or unnecessary.(R)* Self-efficacy I am confident that I can successfully perform any tasks assigned to me on my current job. I can complete the work that is expected of me. I am not as well prepared as I could be to meet all the demands of my job.(R) I cant get my work done on time even when I try very hard.(R)* Public Service Motivation Working for government allows me to give something back to society. It is important to me that my career is in government. The opportunity to provide meaningful public service is an important reason why I originally took this job. Rewards If I accomplish my work objectives, it increases my chances for a pay raise. Fulfilling all my job responsibilities does little to improve my chances for a promotion.(R) Doing good work in no way increases job security here.(R) When I improve my performance, my accomplishments are recognized.* I have seen good job performance rewarded in my work unit.* Organization Importance The work of this organization is not very significant in the broader scheme of things.(R) I believe that the priorities of this organization are quite important. If this organization disappeared, it would hardly be missed.(R) (R) Reverse worded. *Responses on a five-point frequency scale coded 0 (Never/Almost Never) through 4 (Always/Almost Always), all other items used a six-point agree/disagree scale coded 1 (Strongly Disagree) through 6 (Strongly Agree).

33